Posted - 10/18/2010 : 13:30:43 Tampa Bay has some has plenty of super star forwards, but will Steve Yzerman trade away some of his offensive stars to make room for a solid D-Man?

33 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)

irvine

Posted - 10/27/2010 : 16:02:33 I only want to point out that, Tampa Bay may be in a position to spend to the NHL Cap by 2011-2012/2012-2013, as things are bettering in Tampa.

New Owner (who seems of quality), new coach (quality), new GM (quality), all new coaching/managing staff (of quality), and new players (quality).

Starts to spell success and increase in attendance. Even in the poorer markets.

I'm unsure where the cap will be next year, or the year after. But, as trends predict, over $61MM is likely.

Allowing the Lightning to keep both, most likely. If they continue to build, they'll just have to shorten up a position (cheap out), for one season most likely, during the re-build. And they'll be okay to fill that position back, the following year.

Tampa aren't salary cap strapped. So if they continue to improve, and show success... they should be able to spend to NHL cap levels soon.

Irvine/prez.

nuxfan

Posted - 10/25/2010 : 11:49:51 TB *can* have 2 high priced centres, I just don't think they will want to spend that much money on their payroll. If Stamkos goes to 6.5M next year, the TB payroll will be 55M-ish (assuming they replace Gagne's salary with another 4-5M hit), and I don't think they can afford to spend that much money. Or, they go with Lecavalier, let Gagne go, and spend 24M on 4 guys (Lecavalier, St Louis, Stamkos, Malone).

In the nearly all the cases you mention, one of the centres is also capable of playing wing (Malkin in PIT, Marleau in SJ, Briere in PHI). VAN has 2 pure centres, but they also make quite a bit less combined than the others. Its tough to spend 14M on only centres, and then fill in quality wingers around them. Especially if you're not willing to spend to the cap.

Beans15

Posted - 10/25/2010 : 10:42:47 Why can't TB have 2 centres at big dollars?? What about Malkin and Crosby?? What about Sedin and Kesler?? What about Thornton and Marleau?? What about M.Richards and D.Briere??? It is not uncommon to have to centres of top quality on the same team.

Stamkos at 50+ goals, Getzlaf as more than a PPG player and one of the most creative players today, Toews as one of the most clutch hockey players in the game today and they are on the Cusp??

Wow man, you have some pretty high standards to live up to. To each their own, kudo's for having a standard. My standard is not that high.

nuxfan

Posted - 10/25/2010 : 10:08:17 perhaps it is definitions Beans. There are 120 (give or take) centres in the league, so I would consider the top 5% of that "elite", which is 6-10. When I think of "elite", I think of PPG+, PP, maybe PK, key faceoffs, first line, guy on the ice when the game is on the line, on a regular basis: Thornton, Hank Sedin, Crosby, Datsyuk, Malkin, and Backstrom all fit that bill. Stamkos is nearly there, Getzlaf, Toews, Staal, etc are on the cusp.

quote:I'm not so sure it's the defintions that confuse it. I'd say it's more the salary that's the issue here. Lecavalier is paid like a top 5 centerman. What i believe is the main issue is the fact that he's paid so much and is not even a number one center in TB. Sure things change and after those two big years perhaps he earned this contract but at that kind of money, i'd be shopping him around the league in an attempt to get that paycheque off the books if i were running the team!

I would go as far as to say Lecavalier is paid to be a top 5 player, period, regardless of position. He has one of the highest cap hits in the NHL, and will have one of the top 3 $ salaries for the next 6 years (10M per year until 15/16). And he has not been that top-5 player, nor is he getting the opportunity (ie, first line opportunity) to be that player.

This is the last year of Stamkos's EL deal, and I would venture to guess that he'll sign for 6-7M next year on a longer term deal (assuming he has another 50 goal/90+ point season this year). Carrying someone like Lecavalier as your second line centre is a massive mis-allocation of resources for a team like TB - they cannot lock 14M in 2 centres. I think its almost a certainty that Lecavalier will be asked to waive his NMC this year or summer to make room.

I'm sure Lecavalier knows the position he's in, and I think its weighing on him in some way.

Alex116

Posted - 10/25/2010 : 09:32:53

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

First off, I can't stand Kesler. I think he is a complete meatball.

What? NO! Really? All this time i picture you as a Kesler fan Beans?

quote:Originally posted by Beans15It all comes down to our definitions.

I'm not so sure it's the defintions that confuse it. I'd say it's more the salary that's the issue here. Lecavalier is paid like a top 5 centerman. What i believe is the main issue is the fact that he's paid so much and is not even a number one center in TB. Sure things change and after those two big years perhaps he earned this contract but at that kind of money, i'd be shopping him around the league in an attempt to get that paycheque off the books if i were running the team!

Beans15

Posted - 10/25/2010 : 08:59:09 First off, I can't stand Kesler. I think he is a complete meatball. But I can also give credit where credit is due. He is still reasonably early in his career but he is on the cusp of being an elite centre. There are only about 10-15 centres in the NHL that put up 70+ points. Further to that, there are only about 5-8 centres in the NHL that put up 70+ points AND bring other less measurable things to the table like PK, face -ffs, defensive play, etc. Kesler has did that last year. He does that this year again and he is elite in my books.

As you said, Lecavalier has done that for the past 10 years. Elite?? Absolutely.

An above average centre would be guys like Horcoff, Fisher, Handzus, Andy MacDonald, Joken Hect, etc. The guys that are more likely to put up 40 points than 60 or 70 and would play on virtually any teams 2nd line regardless of what city they played in.

One has to remember than less than 60 NHL centres put up 40 or more points in a year today. That means the top 10-15 of those guys are the elite and the next 30-40 guys are the above average guys.

It all comes down to our definitions.

nuxfan

Posted - 10/24/2010 : 22:20:05

quote:Mearly above average. Good golly, what does a guy have to do to be elite??? Now, don't confuse my comments with saying he is not overpaid as I would agree that $10 million a season should give you one of the top 5 players in the NHL and Lecavalier is not there. However, he was tied for 12th for all centres in points. He also is his teams top PK guy, which many other offensive centres are not

Beans, you just described Kesler. Kesler finished with better numbers than Lecavalier, and is also the #1 PK centre for the Canucks. I know you would not call Kesler "elite"

So, lets look at this from a different angle. Lecavalier has been in the NHL for 12 years now. In those 12 years, he's had 2 seasons where he went over 80 points (ppg). 2006/7 was his monster year with 52g/108pt, and 07/08 with 92pts. Both of those years, he was the undisputed #1 centre with TB, played first unit PP, was the leading PK man (and had many SHG), at least as far as I can remember.

The other 10 years in the NHL - the 8 before the big years, and the 2 after that - he's pretty much an above average centre. 30-35 goals (more goals than usual for a centre), 60-75 points. Still the leading PK centre, at least in recent years. Kesler, Plekanec, Statsny all have those sorts of numbers. I would not call any of those 3 "elite".

I guess the question I have is: which Lecavalier is the real Lecavalier? Is it the elite centre capable of 40g/100pts each season and killing penalties all night long, like he did for 2 glorious seasons? Or is it the other centre that will get you 25-30g and 70pts? Is it just injuries, and he'll get over them and come storming back? Or is he getting too old now and losing interest in the game or the team? Suffering under the pressure of performing for an enormous contract (Lecavalier makes 1/7 of the entire TB payroll, and with Luongo is the highest paid player in the NHL this season in actual dollars).

Or, even more worrying for TB, has the arrival of Stamkos and Lecavalier's loss of #1 centre status affected his confidence/desire/will? No doubt the more troubling scenario for TB, because they're effectively stuck with both for a long time - they won't trade Stamkos and they can't easily trade Lecavalier.

Who knows. Perhaps Lecavalier bounces back this year, gets back to PPG+ status, and rocks TB's second line, TB kicks butt in the SE division. If so, I'll gladly eat my words, because I do like Lecavalier.

quote:Put him in another market, specifically a Canadian market, and he would be a God. Seriously, imagine him in TO as their #1 centre.

I think that speaks more to the general weakness of the top line centres for Canadian clubs - really, VAN is the only Canadian team with a true #1, "elite" centre, and guaranteed that Lecavalier would not be the #1 centre here. Anyone that can score 70 points a season is going to be a God in TOR. MTL loves anyone that is from Quebec, never mind a Quebecois that can score. The rest would no doubt be happy with a centre like Lecavalier - but probably not at a 7.8M cap hit and a 10M salary.

Beans15

Posted - 10/24/2010 : 19:45:32 Mearly above average. Good golly, what does a guy have to do to be elite??? Now, don't confuse my comments with saying he is not overpaid as I would agree that $10 million a season should give you one of the top 5 players in the NHL and Lecavalier is not there. However, he was tied for 12th for all centres in points. He also is his teams top PK guy, which many other offensive centres are not. That being one of this 'off years."

I don't know, but tied for 12th out of 230ish guys who played centre last year in the NHL, if the top 5% of the league is not elite, what is???

Lecavalier gets crapped on left, right, and centre because he doesn't match his career high year after year. It doesn't take away from him being one of the best 2 way players in the game. He actually gets hurt (image wise) playing with St. Louis and Stamkos. Put him in another market, specifically a Canadian market, and he would be a God. Seriously, imagine him in TO as their #1 centre.

nuxfan

Posted - 10/24/2010 : 18:23:02

quote:First off, "not much back....draft picks at most." Am I the only one who has been paying attention to the value of draft picks in the NHL since the salary cap?? Teams that are building for the future do to give up draft picks for anything. Unless you name is Brian Burke, you don't trade draft picks.

I didn't say GOOD draft picks, just picks. I don't think TB is going to offer any first or second rounders going the other way - they would know that BOS was over the barrel.

quote:Secondly, Slozo hit the nail on the head. Boston is playing for right now. They know they have a core of players but also know they won't keep the supporting cast for ever. If they think they can win the Cup this year, they will want an insurance in net that is quality. Nothing would be worse for that team if they moved Thomas and shortly after they lost Rask for the year. Going into the playoffs with Smith or Ellis for example is not good.

They may be playing for "right now", but they will be 5M over the cap "in a month". They don't have the luxury of a 2010 CHI, who knew they were over the cap next season but were legal for one more year and could go for it with a very good supporting cast. BOS have some big decisions to make before Christmas, and something big is going to move.

quote:Finally, Lecavalier is the problem?? Disappointing season?? Hmmm. I guess having toom many PPG players is an issue for an offense. Lecavalier, coming off 2 seasons of playing injured for most of the time, has still put up 67 and 70 points. This year, he has 4 points in 6 games coming off a surgery this spring.

Fair enough Beans, he is still producing - although at Kesler numbers, not Lecavalier-10M-per-year numbers, and frankly I expect more from Lecavalier (and so do TB most likely). He went from being one of the elite 2 or 3 centres in the league in 200/7/8 to merely above average now. Do you think Lecavalier is producing to the best of his abilities?

Perhaps you're right and injuries were plaguing him for the last 2 years, we'll see where he is later this year. However, the last 2 seasons have been disappointing for TB and Lecavalier alike.

ToXXiK1

Posted - 10/24/2010 : 13:54:03 Thomas on the block wasn't a rumour, it was fact. He got injured, and Rask took over, making him expendable. When and if Sturm & Savvy come back, we got issues.Ryder and Wheeler shouldn't unpack just yet.

Beans15

Posted - 10/24/2010 : 09:04:07 First off, "not much back....draft picks at most." Am I the only one who has been paying attention to the value of draft picks in the NHL since the salary cap?? Teams that are building for the future do to give up draft picks for anything. Unless you name is Brian Burke, you don't trade draft picks.

Secondly, Slozo hit the nail on the head. Boston is playing for right now. They know they have a core of players but also know they won't keep the supporting cast for ever. If they think they can win the Cup this year, they will want an insurance in net that is quality. Nothing would be worse for that team if they moved Thomas and shortly after they lost Rask for the year. Going into the playoffs with Smith or Ellis for example is not good.

Finally, Lecavalier is the problem?? Disappointing season?? Hmmm. I guess having toom many PPG players is an issue for an offense. Lecavalier, coming off 2 seasons of playing injured for most of the time, has still put up 67 and 70 points. This year, he has 4 points in 6 games coming off a surgery this spring.

Honestly, most teams would kill to have a player of Lecavalier's abilities as their 2nd line centre. Heck, he would be a #1 centre on 1/2 the teams in the league. He's the problem??? Never knew there was a problem!! TB is the #1 team for goal for in the NHL.

nuxfan

Posted - 10/23/2010 : 11:36:54 if the move Thomas and bring one of the TB goalies back the other way, that would be a net savings of ~3.5M. They'll have to move another player as well anyway - Ryder seems the obvious choice to waive.

So, was Gagne a healthy scratch, or is he injured? I picked him up in a couple of my pools, figured he'd be a sure bet for 40 goals playing with TB's offense...

I'm beginning to wonder if the REAL problem with TB's offense is actually Lecavalier. The first line of Stamkos/StLouis/anyone else seems to be firing on all cylinders, again for the second year in a row. But again, for the second year in a row, the line that Lecavalier centres is lackluster, and Lecavalier himself seems on his way to another dissapointing season.

Leafs81

Posted - 10/23/2010 : 11:24:52

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

quote:Originally posted by slozo

Seriously, I think Rask is about as talented as Thomas . . . which is to say, they both got lucky with their career seasons, playing in front of a great defence. Not that they were bad or anything, just that, I don't think either are/were great.

It's Boston's time, they aren't looking at the future - they are looking at NOW. Which is why, in all probability, they keep both goalies - so that they have the options if one gets cold.

When is that last time a top team traded one of their tandem goalies mid-season? I would guess . . . never.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

Minnesota traded Roloson to Edmonton when their tandem was Fernandez and Roloson and they were competing for their division at the time.

But that was about 8 years ago and the only time I can think of so I would agree that it's not a common trade in the NHL.

The year Montreal finish first in the east they traded Huet to Washington for a second round pick at the trade deadline. Left a 20 years old Price leading the way into the playoffs.

So I'm with Nuxfan, but IF they do trade Thomas to TB, Smith or Ellis would have to come back the other way to back up a really young Rask.

Plus the way it is now in the NHL, a lot of teams build a strong team with a lot of depth and then they leave the goalie position up for grab. Especially since Niemi and Leighton were fighting for a Stanley Cup last year.

So if Boston comes to a point where they need to shed some salary, I think a guy like Thomas would be strongly looked at, especially if he's hot and moveable. Because Thomas does have a pretty big contract for his age. And I'm sure Boston wouldn't mind moving him.

Michael Ryder would probably be a better choice to move if they want to keep their tandem intact. but no team will want him.

So I say first they try to move Ryder, waiver or whatever they need to do, if that doesn't work Thomas needs to go, and a solid backup needs to come back.

Guest4193

Posted - 10/23/2010 : 10:33:28 GAGNE is putting up horrible numbers in Tampa. Same as Tanguay did last year. You're right to note that the Flames have ample D-man... I could see them stretching pennies to move a D and say, Langkow to Tampa for Gagne and a pick.

Flames can use the offensive flair if they get Gagne going, but also it gives them a way out of too many one-way D-men deals and Langkow's crazy contract. Of course, this is provided he gets healthy. Otherwise maybe Kotalik gets put in the package after his very strong training camp. I would think after Gagne being a healthy scratch last game and Staois and Langkow/Kotalik taking up so much cap space it should be a no brainer.

nuxfan

Posted - 10/22/2010 : 21:53:07

quote:More importantly, what does TB have of value that would be equitable to Thomas that Boston would want??

Beans, if BOS does trade Thomas, I don't think they want much back - it will be a salary dump plain and simple. Draft picks at most, they really can't afford to take much back the other way.

Thank you Toxxik - Sturm. Although, I'm not sure how that works. According to capgeek, Boston's LTIR credit is worth 5.4M. Savard and Sturm make a combined 7.3.

Irvine - I could see them getting rid of some forwards, but they have to get rid of more than one. Ryder is an obvious candidate, but after that, who? Savard will be hard to trade now, Seguin is off limits (and I would have to think Lucic and Horton are also). If they go the forward route, they have to get rid of at least 2.

irvine

Posted - 10/22/2010 : 20:40:15 I'm with nuxfan here.

Boston have some big choices to make, once Savard comes back. Even more so, when Savard & Sturm come back.

They seem to have some added offensive talent up front this season, so an option could be to move a forward. But, which one do you move? And, it has to be one or two that clear up $5MM+ in salary and does not hurt you offensively again, like Kessel did. They won't make that mistake twice.

Moving a Center seems likely. But is there a market for Savard? After his concussion issues. Do you part with Bergeron? You're not moving the rookie young gun.

On Defence, you have a quality back end. You don't want to part ways one of your top 4. Not if you want the Cup.

It seems to me, with how well Rask played last season, and with Thomas playing well to begin this year, your best option is trading Thomas somewhere.

You could free up the cap space required, and get a decent return in the process. Something not usual, in a cap-dump trade. Because Thomas is playing well again, teams interest has peaked at full-value.

Now is the time to trade Thomas. For full-value + cap relief. A combo that, teams covet in a salary cap world.

Irvine/prez.

nuxfan

Posted - 10/22/2010 : 10:54:11 I recall this past summer that BOS was trying to move Thomas (or at least that was the rumour), but were having trouble because he was coming off a subpar season. I can't help but wonder if the early season playing is meant to showcase that he hasn't lost it to potential suitors (while reaping the benefits of his good play of course). Beans, agreed he is certainly inconsistent - so, best to sell him when he's hot.

The complications for Thomas are a NTC/NMC, which he would have to waive.

However, Boston's hand will be forced with the return of Savard - they will have to cut roughly 5M from their current roster to fit under the cap. Thomas seems as likely a candidate as others.

quote:Seriously, I think Rask is about as talented as Thomas . . . which is to say, they both got lucky with their career seasons, playing in front of a great defence. Not that they were bad or anything, just that, I don't think either are/were great.

Ha Slozo - I think if Rask were still a Leaf and was coming off the season he'd just had, you'd be singing a different tune.

ToXXiK1

Posted - 10/22/2010 : 10:43:06 The other player on the IR is Marco Sturm.

Beans15

Posted - 10/22/2010 : 10:38:12

quote:Originally posted by slozo

Seriously, I think Rask is about as talented as Thomas . . . which is to say, they both got lucky with their career seasons, playing in front of a great defence. Not that they were bad or anything, just that, I don't think either are/were great.

It's Boston's time, they aren't looking at the future - they are looking at NOW. Which is why, in all probability, they keep both goalies - so that they have the options if one gets cold.

When is that last time a top team traded one of their tandem goalies mid-season? I would guess . . . never.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

Minnesota traded Roloson to Edmonton when their tandem was Fernandez and Roloson and they were competing for their division at the time.

But that was about 8 years ago and the only time I can think of so I would agree that it's not a common trade in the NHL.

slozo

Posted - 10/22/2010 : 10:33:00 Seriously, I think Rask is about as talented as Thomas . . . which is to say, they both got lucky with their career seasons, playing in front of a great defence. Not that they were bad or anything, just that, I don't think either are/were great.

It's Boston's time, they aren't looking at the future - they are looking at NOW. Which is why, in all probability, they keep both goalies - so that they have the options if one gets cold.

When is that last time a top team traded one of their tandem goalies mid-season? I would guess . . . never.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

Beans15

Posted - 10/22/2010 : 10:22:17 I'm kind of in the middle of the Thomas to the Lightning. Thomas also has been know to be inconsistant. Considering he was drafted in 94 and then played for a decade in the minor or overseas, we are not talking about a legit guy. Ultimately, take away the one Vezina season and he's pretty pedestrian. Plus, Rask is a super young dude.

I think Boston would be better served with both of them than moving them.

More importantly, what does TB have of value that would be equitable to Thomas that Boston would want??

nuxfan

Posted - 10/22/2010 : 09:55:04 erm, because they have 2 awesome starting goalies, and not enough cap room to keep them both. One of them makes 5M for the next 5 years and is 30-something years old. The other is 23 years old and makes 1.25M for the next 2 years.

BOS is currently about 4.8M over the cap, they are only under because Savard (and someone else but I don't know who) is on LTIR. Once Savard comes back in mid-November, they have to make some hard choices. Thomas was a hard sell in the summer coming off a bad year. But if he lights it up early this season, perhaps he's easier to move.

I'm pretty sure that BOS has locked into Rask for their goaltending going forward.

slozo

Posted - 10/22/2010 : 04:42:13 nuxfan - are you on crack? Why would Boston want to get rid of Thomas if he's played himself (for right now) into the starter's position?

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

nuxfan

Posted - 10/21/2010 : 23:02:14 ...speaking of TB offensive talent...any thoughts on what is up with Gagne? 5 games, no points, -8. He's playing on the second line with Lecavalier and sometimes Malone...he should be lighting it up but is not.

nuxfan

Posted - 10/21/2010 : 23:00:09 Actually, the Thomas angle is viable - TB has plenty o' cap space to play with, and could easily afford to fit him onto the team. He'd be a bonafide starter that they desperately need (I agree with those that say TB's worst hole is goaltending, not defense). Ellis was a good gamble at the time, but it hasn't panned out yet.

Send one of Ellis or Smith to Boston, in exchange for Thomas and extract something else of value (BOS would still love to get rid of that contract). You have your goalie, and you're still 7M under the cap.

I cannot see LA giving up Quick anytime soon. He has been awesome to start the season, and I think he'll continue to shine, he's a very good goalie.

Gusteroni

Posted - 10/21/2010 : 13:31:29 I say no, only maybe Gagne but he has been a dud so far. It sure looks like like Stammy is up to his old tricks early this year...9 pts in 5 games (5 G/4 A) that's incredible. I am one that believes he will be contending for a second Maurice "Rocket" Richard Trophy this season!!

"When Hell freezes over, I'll play hockey there too."

ToXXiK1

Posted - 10/21/2010 : 07:14:47 Maybe they take a gamble on the vetran Turco when his year is up in Chi? I think he only signed for 1. But, that won't help them now, as Chi is gonna ride him as far as he'll take them. So, ya, only "B" goalie options. Calgary as reported have ample Dmen available, but, I think they can shake one loose closer to the deadline, patience Stevie Y, patience !

Giggy ain't moving unless he starts to play like Toskala, and at that point, no one will want him as anything more than an insurance back-up. They need him there even if just to back up Gustavsson (if he gets hot and becomes the starter). Not moving.

Thomas is too expensive, and no way does Boston make the same mistake Montreal just did. Not happening.

Quick - possible, but unlikely . . . I'd think LA would want to keep him around until the end of the year. But who knows, they have made some funny moves in the past.

There are other goalies out there, plenty of "B" options.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

Guest0026

Posted - 10/20/2010 : 09:26:28 The question is what goalies who could be considered legit are out there and will be available to make a deal?

The guys who come to mind for me are:1) Vokoun - last year of a contract and if florida is bad enough they may look to sell him as a rental2) Quick - If Bernier is as expected, they could perhpas part with him3) Giguere - also the last year of a contract and if the Leafs nosedive, he could be moved at the deadline.4) Someone might suggest Thomas but I think his contract might be untouchable

I think after that you'll just be picking up another backup or a unproven commodity.

slozo

Posted - 10/18/2010 : 19:04:13 I would agree with Beans . . . yeah, they need more depth on D, but outside a half dozen teams, who doesn't? I think the key thing is a top goalie.

If TB gets a legitimate and proven starting goalie, they are playoff bound for sure. And Stevie Y might just do it.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

Guest5806

Posted - 10/18/2010 : 15:57:01 Hedman should be a #1 Defense-man next year

Beans15

Posted - 10/18/2010 : 14:15:59 I don't mind Tampa's Defense all that much. Hedman, Clark, Kubina, and Ohlund(when healthy) are a decent top 4. Not near the top of the league by any stretch but not near the bottom either.

I would suggest that TB bigger issues are in net (Ellis and Smith??) and at depth after their top 6 forwards. Outside of Dominic Moore and Teddy Purcell there is no reputable forwards outside of top 6.

semin-rules

Posted - 10/18/2010 : 14:07:51 I think ever since Tampa bay moved to Edmonton they have been doing really well your right

but seriously I do think Tampa needs some D !!But they won't get rid of any of their top offence to get it,they do need some solid blue liners to be unstoppable . But they can get it after my Stars beat them tonight :)